Re-Print-A Comparison between Conventional Throat Packs and Pharyngeal Placement of Tampons in Rhinology Surgeries.

H. Alansari
{"title":"Re-Print-A Comparison between Conventional Throat Packs and Pharyngeal Placement of Tampons in Rhinology Surgeries.","authors":"H. Alansari","doi":"10.31579/2692-9562/015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: the aim is to evaluate the incidence of postoperative throat pain, nausea and vomiting in patients that have been packed with either conventional gauze or pharyngeal tampons. Methods: We included adult patients who were booked for a rhinology surgery that needed throat packs. They were allocated into two groups, pharyngeal tampons, and conventional ribbon gauze. They were then assessed using visual analog scales and Post-operative nausea and vomiting impact scale respectively in the 1st, 4th, and 24th hour. Data was analyzed using SPSS software version 25. Results: There is evidence to suggest that using pharyngeal tampons reduces the mean VAS score at 4 hours compared to using Gauze. [t87=3.294, p=0.001), the is no statistical evidence that show a difference in the other Visual analogue scores or post-operative nausea and vomiting scores. Conclusion: The study shows that the use of pharyngeal tampons is associated with decreased pain scores, however, it also shows that there no difference in postoperative nausea and vomiting.","PeriodicalId":79680,"journal":{"name":"Lin chuang er bi yan hou ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology","volume":"34 1","pages":"01-07"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lin chuang er bi yan hou ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31579/2692-9562/015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: the aim is to evaluate the incidence of postoperative throat pain, nausea and vomiting in patients that have been packed with either conventional gauze or pharyngeal tampons. Methods: We included adult patients who were booked for a rhinology surgery that needed throat packs. They were allocated into two groups, pharyngeal tampons, and conventional ribbon gauze. They were then assessed using visual analog scales and Post-operative nausea and vomiting impact scale respectively in the 1st, 4th, and 24th hour. Data was analyzed using SPSS software version 25. Results: There is evidence to suggest that using pharyngeal tampons reduces the mean VAS score at 4 hours compared to using Gauze. [t87=3.294, p=0.001), the is no statistical evidence that show a difference in the other Visual analogue scores or post-operative nausea and vomiting scores. Conclusion: The study shows that the use of pharyngeal tampons is associated with decreased pain scores, however, it also shows that there no difference in postoperative nausea and vomiting.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
常规咽喉填充物与卫生棉条在鼻科手术中咽部放置的比较。
目的:目的是评估患者术后喉咙痛,恶心和呕吐的发生率已被包装的传统纱布或咽卫生棉条。方法:我们纳入了预定进行鼻外科手术需要咽喉包的成年患者。他们被分为两组,咽卫生棉条组和传统的带状纱布组。分别于术后第1、4、24小时采用视觉模拟量表和术后恶心呕吐影响量表对患者进行评估。数据分析采用SPSS软件25版。结果:有证据表明,与使用纱布相比,使用咽卫生棉条可降低4小时时的平均VAS评分。[t87=3.294, p=0.001],其他视觉模拟评分或术后恶心呕吐评分无统计学差异。结论:本研究显示咽部卫生棉条的使用与疼痛评分降低有关,但也显示术后恶心和呕吐无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Congenital Tracheoesophageal Fistula Presenting in an Asymptomatic Adult- A Case Report Factors Contributing To Clinic No-Show at a Safety Net Hospital How Can We Best Manage Patients With Oligometastatic Disease In Head And Neck Cancer? Sinister growth behind the ear: how can a person be sloppy and shoddy??? A Systematic Review of the Auditory and Vestibular Effects of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1